Paul Weyrich Quotes

Many voters think about the makeup of the Supreme Court when they are choosing a president. The justices deal not only with constitutional issues but also with social issues that were unknown to the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution more than 200 years ago.

Obama and Biden want a bench crammed full of liberal judicial activists, and it's up to the American people to tell them 'no.'

The liberals are fighting so hard whenever President Bush appoints any federal judges.

The nation will be shaped for decades by decisions that are made by President Bush and the Senate about the future of the Supreme Court.

So the danger of conservative judicial activism has been averted for another year. Stay tuned.

If you're president, it's often your court appointments that seal your legacy with a capital L.

President Trump continued his strong commitment to nominating conservative judges to the bench who respect the rule of law with his selection of Holly Brady for the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana.

Roosevelt got a chance to name an amazing nine justices of the Supreme Court. He was not namby-pamby on this question. He wanted people who shared his views, he wanted liberals, and he wanted lots of them.

The place to find the explanation for the liberal-activist mindset of the courts is in the political arena.

A chief justice's authority is really quite limited, and the dynamic among all the justices is going to affect whether he can accomplish much or not. There is this convention of referring to the Taney Court, the Marshall Court, the Fuller Court, but a chief justice has the same vote that everyone else has.

The Supreme Court has made itself into a political institution … It has become a political prize and a political position.

Federal judges may long outlast the Presidents who appoint them.

Maintaining a liberal activist judiciary is the only means of keeping policymakers out of control of the American people.

For roughly two hundred years, politics has influenced dramatically the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices. Presidents routinely have selected nominees to the Court based on political considerations…

A Supreme Court justice is sometimes a liberal on one issue and a conservative on another.

Look out: The Supreme Court’s black-robed gang of far right ideologues are rampaging again!

It's the people's Supreme Court, and we should let them decide its direction.

The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons.

I am angry - mad - at the Chief Justice, John Roberts.

I have always thought that term limits for Justices sound good until you really give the issue some thought.

Conservative Justices have a history of not standing by their professed commitment to judicial restraint.

If Democrats get another Elena Kagan, who has no business being there, if they get another Senorita Sonia Sotomayor, if they get another Stephen Breyer, who may be one of the absolute worst, Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, if they get another one of these, then we don't have a Supreme Court, folks.

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.

Illinois Senator Paul Simon, once said "The test for a Supreme Court nominee is not where he stands on any one specific issue. The test is this: Will you use your power on the court to restrict freedom or expand it?"

To hear both critics and defenders talk about the fitness of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, you'd think the most successful Supreme Court justices had been warm, collegial consensus-builders. But history tells a different story.